Quote Originally Posted by Running Mommy View Post
"You know, I think that's the difference between people who "do" an Ironman, and people who ARE (because it's in their dna) an Ironman. An Ironman goes out there and does their very best for that given day. They leave it out on the course.
They respect the race for what it is. And to them, it's not just a fad...
I completely agree with you gals. I do not think that any 17 hour finisher should receive a medal or be considered an Ironman.

I've completed 7 marathons and they were hard, so I have a HUGE respect for you ladies who are Ironmen. And I do not think that anything should water down the distinction.

But I guess I want to say that I think that this was a little hitch in the process here, caused by trying to adapt to the water/current situation. I looked at the results and only 3 people are listed as having a time greater than 17:00. These people know the rules and they know that they are not ironmen. We know they are not. I don't think that it sets a precedent for watering down the Ironman overall.

I've heard this debate to some degree on the marathon side. People taking 8:00 hours to complete a marathon. Did they run a marathon? Do you have to run every step to run a marathon? My fastest marathon was 4:44 and slowest was 5:18. Do I qualify as a marathoner? Would you run the Boston Marathon without qualifying? (just throwing out questions that are raised) There are people who cut marathon courses. But marathons do not have a governing body that was set forth a time limit like the Ironman.

I hope this comment doesnt' offend anyone.....I completely respect the distance and the accomplishment and the rules set forth for it (time limit).